coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Ghent.
9.  On 29 March 1994 he was arrested in connection with an investigation concerning a case of arson committed on 25 May 1993.
10.  On 1 April 1994 the Committals Division of the Ghent Criminal Court refused to extend the validity of the arrest warrant. On appeal, the Indictment Division of the Ghent Court of Appeal overturned that decision and prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention.
11.  On 21 April 1994 the investigating judge rescinded the warrant concerned.
12.  On 29 June 1994 and 2 June 1995 respectively the Committals Division and the Indictment Division, ruling on the action to be taken on the basis of the investigation to date, held that there was insufficient evidence to commit the applicant for trial and discontinued the proceedings.
13.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for unwarranted pre-trial detention, relying on the Law of 13 March 1973 (see “Relevant domestic law” below).
14.  On 12 May 1997 the Minister of Justice refused the applicant's claim on the ground that he had not “established his innocence by adducing factual evidence or submitting legal argument to that effect”, as required by section 28(1)(b) of the Law of 1973. That requirement was justified, according to the Minister, in the case of an order or judgment discontinuing criminal proceedings, given that a discontinuation decision was not a bar to the reopening of the case if new information or evidence were to come to light.
15.  On 4 July 1997 the applicant contested the Minister's decision by means of an application to the Unwarranted Pre-trial Detention Appeals Board.
16.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant appeared before the Appeals Board, which upheld the refusal of his claim by a decision taken on the same day and served on the applicant on 29 March 1998. It noted that the grounds for presuming the guilt of the applicant, who had always denied committing the offence he stood accused of when appearing before the courts investigating the charge, had been held to be insufficient to justify committing him for trial. It observed that, although the applicant had announced his intention of submitting a pleading setting out the evidence in the file which “amply” proved his innocence, he had not done so and had not replied to the Government's submissions. Consequently, the Appeals Board found that he had not proved his innocence as the law required (dat verzoeker derhalve het bij de wet van hem vereiste bewijs van onschuld niet bijbrengt).
4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1973 and live in Muć Gornji and Split respectively.
5.  On 6 December 1989 the applicants rented business premises from the “Cibona” Basketball Club (“the Club”) in Zagreb.
6.  On 10 February 1990 the Club unilaterally terminated the contract, because the applicants had delayed in paying an amount of money stipulated in the contract.
7.  The applicants subsequently instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking to have the contract restored. On 17 October 1990 the first-instance court accepted their claim.
8.  On 21 May 1991 the Zagreb County Court (Okružni sud Zagreb) dismissed an appeal by the Club. The applicants sought enforcement of that judgment on 18 July 1991.
9.  The proceedings ended on 11 March 1992 when the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the Club’s request for revision on points of law.
10.  The Club meanwhile concluded a new contract renting the same business premises to Ž.B. and T.B. (“the new tenants”), who immediately occupied the premises.
11.  On 3 September 1991 the new tenants, as third parties, objected to the enforcement sought by the applicants on 18 July 1991, claiming that they were entitled to use the premises. They were instructed by the competent court to file a civil action against the applicants in order to have the enforcement declared inadmissible.
12.  On 21 October 1991 the new tenants instituted civil proceedings against the applicants to that end. They claimed that they had not known and could not have known about the applicants’ contract with the Club. Consequently, on 8 January 1992 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending a decision on this question.
13.  After judgments at first instance and on appeal, which were quashed by the Supreme Court on 21 April 1994, the proceedings were remitted to the Zagreb Municipal Court.
14.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court held two hearings and heard evidence from two witnesses. On 4 April 1996 the court declared the enforcement inadmissible. It found that the new tenants, in concluding their contract with the Club, had acted in good faith and that they were thus entitled to use the premises in line with the legislation in force at the material time.
15.  On 8 April 1997 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants.
16.  On 10 June 1997 the applicants filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija). On 8 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed their request on the merits. This decision was served on the applicants on 31 January 2001.
17.  On 15 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicants, finding no violation of their constitutional rights.
7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Dubrovnik.
8.  On 13 August 1992 the Croatian Military Police requisitioned the applicant's vehicle for use by the Croatian Army.
9.  By a letter of 1 August 1996 the Dubrovnik Defence Office (Ured za obranu Dubrovnik) informed the applicant that the vehicle had been damaged beyond repair.
10.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) seeking compensation for the loss of his vehicle from the State.
11.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
12.  On 2 May 2000 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.
13.  On 1 September 2000 the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.
14.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) seeking a review of the constitutionality of the 1999 Amendments. These proceedings are still pending.
15.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
16.  In 2004 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.
10.  The applicant was born in 1974. On 30 November 1998 he applied for asylum in Sweden. He claimed mainly that he was sought by the Iranian authorities as he had had a relationship with a married woman whose husband was a mullah. The mullah and his followers had been planning to apprehend him and he had therefore fled his home town. Before leaving Iran, he had been told that a warrant for his arrest had been issued and he also believed that he and the woman had been sentenced to death by stoning.
11.  On 14 April 1999 the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) rejected the application and ordered that the applicant be expelled to Iran. The Board did not find his allegations plausible and also noted that the evidentiary requirements in cases of adultery were very high in Iran.
12.  The applicant appealed against the decision and claimed that, despite the rules on evidence concerning adultery, he could still be convicted on less evidence for having offended public morals and be sentenced to be lashed. He also stated that he had converted to Christianity on 7 February 1999, for which he could be sentenced to death in Iran.
13.  On 13 November 2000 the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlännings-nämnden) rejected the appeal. It noted that the applicant had not produced any evidence showing that he had had the above-mentioned relationship or that he would be subjected to inhuman treatment on account of it. In regard to his conversion, the Board stated that conversion to Christianity was regarded by the Iranian authorities as a “technical” step to acquire asylum.
14.  On 14 December 2000 the applicant lodged a new application for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeals Board. He submitted two Iranian documents, issued in May or June 1998 and in November 1999, which purportedly contained a summons for him to appear before an Iranian court to answer charges of adultery. Claiming that he would rather commit suicide than return to Iran, the applicant also submitted a medical certificate issued on 5 January 2001 by Mr Lars Odefors and Mr Nahid Mohseni, qualified psychologists, who stated that the applicant showed signs of desperation and expressed suicidal thoughts which should be taken seriously and that he was in need of treatment in a psychiatric ward.
15.  On 16 January 2001, following the Court's indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the National Migration Board (Migrationsverket; previously the National Immigration Board) stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order.
16.  By a decision of 23 September 2004 the Aliens Appeals Board revoked the expulsion order and granted the applicant a permanent residence permit. While considering that the Iranian documents relied on by the applicant were falsifications and that he could not be regarded as a refugee, the Appeals Board found that there were humanitarian reasons to grant him a residence permit. In this respect, it noted that the new application had been pending for a long time, that the applicant had been residing legally in Sweden since January 2001 and that the validity of its decision of 13 November 2000 to expel him would expire on 13 November 2004.
8.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1959 respectively and live in Izmir.
9.  In 1987 the applicants' daughter, C.Ç., was severely injured in an accident. Her hair was burned and part of her scalp was damaged.
10.  On 24 November 1992 C.Ç. underwent surgery at the Ege University Plastic Surgery Department to repair the damage to her scalp. Prior to the operation, the doctors informed the applicants about the risks involved. Following the operation, the applicants' daughter caught an infection.
11.  On 13 January 1992 the doctors carried out a second operation on C.Ç. following a deterioration of her health. However, her physical appearance did not improve following the operation.
12.  On 24 November 1993 the applicants filed an action with the Izmir Civil Court of First Instance against the doctors who performed the operation and claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of medical malpractice.
13.  On 28 December 1993 the Izmir Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction on the ground that it was not competent to examine the acts of civil servants carried out in the exercise of their duties.
14.  On 16 February 1994 the applicants filed an action with the Izmir Administrative Court against the Ege University Medical Department (hereinafter “the defendant”) and claimed compensation for medical malpractice.
15.  On 8 March 1994 the Izmir Administrative Court conducted a preliminary examination of the case file.
16.  On 6 April 1994 the defendant submitted its observations to the court.
17.  On 8 July 1994 the applicants submitted their response.
18.  On 27 January 1995 the Izmir Administrative Court held a hearing and gave an interim decision ordering the defendant to submit all the files concerning the operation performed on the applicants' daughter.
19.  On 20 March 1995 the defendant submitted additional observations.
20.  On 7 April 1995 the defendant submitted thirty-seven documents concerning the operation.
21.  On 7 November 1995 the Izmir Administrative Court appointed three experts to provide a medical opinion on C.Ç's operation. They were given thirty days for submission of their report.
22.  On 23 November 1995 the experts' report was submitted to the court.
23.  On 18 March 1996 the Izmir Administrative Court, relying on the experts' conclusions, found that there was no indication of any negligence on the part of the Medical Department in the treatment given to C.Ç. The court therefore dismissed the applicants' claim for compensation.
24.  On 5 September 1996 the applicants appealed against the judgment of the first-instance court.
25.  On 4 October 1996 the defendant submitted its observations to the Administrative Court.
26.  On 13 November 1996 the case file was sent to the Supreme Administrative Court together with the applicant's appeal and the defendant's response thereto.
27.  On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court, without holding a hearing, dismissed the applicants' appeal.
28.  On 3 February 1999 the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court was served on the applicants.
8.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Pazardjik.
9.  On 19 August 1993 he was arrested, charged with the rape of a minor and remanded in custody. Six other persons were also charged.
10.  According to the indictment, the victim had been abducted by a Mr. A. and had been raped numerous times by several persons, some of whom had paid to Mr A. for having sex with the victim. Mr A. was charged with rape and acting as a procurer of prostitution. According to the applicant, all accused persons and the alleged victim are of Roma origin.
11.  On unspecified dates an investigator interrogated the alleged victim and other accused persons and heard several experts.
12.  In June 1994 the applicant and six other persons were indicted and the case listed for trial.
13.  In September and October 1994 the trial court referred the case to the prosecutor in view of certain deficiencies in the investigation. On 17 February 1995 the applicant was released on bail.
14.  In November 1995 the investigator concluded his work and submitted the file to the prosecutor.
15.  In May 1996 the prosecutor ordered additional investigation. In June 1996 the investigator submitted the case to the prosecutor with the proposal that the applicant should be indicted.
16.  In 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged requests with the prosecuting authorities complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings.
17.  On 27 February 2001, noting that the case had remained dormant since June 1996, a prosecutor ordered the resumption of the proceedings and referred the case to an investigator.
18.  On 4 April 2002 the investigator objected, stating that in view of the lapse of time, the ensuing evidentiary difficulties and the workload of the investigation service it was preferable to terminate the proceedings.
19.  The prosecutor did not accept the investigator’s proposal and on 22 April 2002 ordered additional investigation.
20.  It appears that as of November 2004 the proceedings were still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Vienna.
5.  On 14 February 2001 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was released on 27 February 2001.
6.  Also on 14 February 2001 the investigating judge ordered a search of the applicant’s premises, as he was also suspected of owning child pornographic material. A number of video-tapes were seized but the suspicion was not confirmed and the subsequent proceedings were conducted for charges under Article 209 alone.
7.  On 24 September 2001 the Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings on the condition of payment of a penalty of 20,000 Austrian schillings. The Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed against this decision.
8.  On 11 December 2001 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and referred the case back to it.
9.  On 15 January 2002 the Regional Court convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, between 1994 and 2001, the applicant had performed homosexual acts with four different adolescents.
10.  On 3 December 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 21 June 2002 which had found that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. However, the amendment of the law, which had repealed Article 209 did not apply to proceedings, in which the first instance court’s judgment had already been given before its entry into force on 14 August 2002. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2003.
11.  The applicant’s petition for a pardon was of no avail.
12.  On 3 April 2003 the Federal Minister of Justice replied to questions put by members of Parliament concerning the granting of a pardon in cases of convictions under Article 209. In these questions the applicant’s case was referred to by the file number and the date of the final decision. The Minister stated, without mentioning the applicant’s name, that he had denied a pardon in this case, as the conduct of the person concerned would also qualify as an offence under the newly introduced Article 207b, as in one case that person had taken advantage of the adolescent’s predicament, i.e. the fact that the latter had, following a conflict with his parents, temporarily lived in that person’s apartment.
4.  The applicant was a Ukrainian citizen born in 1948 who died on 16 September 2004. By letter of 5 November 2004, the applicant's widow and children informed the Court that they wished to pursue the application.
5.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv seeking the recovery of salary arrears against his former employer - the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which performed construction work at Chernobyl in the zone which had been compulsory evacuated. By a decision of the court of 7 October 1998, the applicant was awarded 4,964 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears. On 25 January and 18 August 2000 the applicant received UAH 147.28 and UAH 77.90 respectively. However, the judgment remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 4,738.82 (the equivalent of 677 euros [“EUR”]).
6.  By letter of 4 January 2003, the Ukrainian Government Agent informed the applicant's lawyer about the large number of execution writs pending against the debtor company, in the total amount of UAH 3,849,312[1]. Enforcement of the judgments by the attachment of property, however, required a special authorisation from the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor's property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Such authorisation was not granted.
7.  By the order of 27 June 2002 of the Ministry of Energy, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.
8.  Accordingly, on 17 March 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case and forwarded the execution writ to the liquidation commission as a creditor's claim. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novovoronezh, Voronezh Region.
5.  In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Chief Department of Finance of the Voronezh Region to claim welfare payments to which she was entitled in respect of her child.
6.  On 5 January 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 3,387.87 roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 15 January 2000.
7.  On 10 February 2000 the enforcement order was issued and sent to the bailiff service of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh.
8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant complained to the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region about the bailiffs’ failure to execute the judgment in her favour.
9.  On 20 April 2000 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in accordance with the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.
10.  On 26 June 2001 the bailiff terminated execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 January 2000, as the debtor had no sufficient funds. The applicant was suggested to bring an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region.
11.  On 13 February 2002 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant’s request to resume enforcement proceedings. In this decision the court dismissed the bailiff’s argument that an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region was necessary to secure execution of the judgment against the Chief Department of Finance. The court found that the judgment of 5 January 2000 could be enforced as it stood.
12.  The sum awarded has not been paid to the applicant.
4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1944 respectively and live in Voronezh.
5.  In 2000 the applicants each brought a set of proceedings against the welfare office of the Levoberezhnyi District of Voronezh to claim a raise of their pensions by a statutory index ratio.
6.  On 10 October 2000 the Levoberezhnyi District Court of Voronezh granted both applicants' claims. It awarded them arrears of 1,123.07 roubles (RUR) and RUR 1,089.51 respectively. Both judgments entered into force on 21 October 2000.[i]
7.  On 19 December 2000 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 10 October 2000.
8.  On 27 April 2001 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings in respect of both judgments of 10 October 2000, which had not been enforced because of the lack of funds on the debtor's accounts.
9.  On 30 May 2002, following the applicant's request, the bailiff service instituted new enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 10 October 2000.
10.  On 27 June 2002 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings, again because of the lack of funds on the debtor's accounts.
11.  The judgments of 10 October 2000 have not been enforced to date.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of Internal Affairs following her husband's death during his military service in Chechnya.
6.  On 29 August 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. Her award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 204,462 roubles (RUR) and a monthly payment of RUR 2,271.80, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate.
7.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant obtained an execution order, which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.
8.  On 4 July 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid RUR 313,508.40 pursuant to the execution order.